PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 179.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 23, 2013
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act - Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conducting the study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, with respect to which a request for information was issued in November 2012, to:
prior to issuance and dissemination of any final or interim report summarizing EPA research on such relationship, consider such reports to be Highly Influential Scientific Assessments requiring peer review in accordance with specified EPA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy documents;
require the reports to meet the standards and procedures for the dissemination of influential scientific, financial, or statistical information set forth in the EPA's Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency, developed in response to guidelines issued by OMB under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001; and
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
ensure that identification of the possible impacts included in such reports be accompanied by objective estimates of the probability, uncertainty, and consequence of each identified impact, taking into account the risk management practices of states and industry, and that estimates or descriptions of probability, uncertainty, and consequence are as quantitative as possible given the validity, accuracy, precision, and other quality attributes of the underlying data and analyses, but no more quantitative than the data and analyses can support.
Requires public release of the final report by September 30, 2016.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 179.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 113-252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 113-252.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2850 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2850 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2850 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2850 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.